Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, APRIL 1, 1997

Afternoon

Volume 3, Number 7

[ Page 2221 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

G. Bowbrick: We have with us in the gallery today a group of 20 political science students from Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon, along with their professors, Donald Balmer and Mervyn Brockett. They have come here today to learn a little more about how our political system works, and I'm happy to say that this morning I gave them a perfectly objective presentation about the government's accomplishments. This afternoon I'm sure they are expecting the same from the official opposition and the third party. I'd like the House to join me in making them welcome.

B. Penner: It is indeed my pleasure to introduce to the House my parents Wilf and Frieda Penner, who took the day off from their apple farm in Chilliwack to be here today. In addition, joining my parents are some other relatives of mine. A number of cousins are present, Michael, Nathaniel and Matthew, as well as my uncle Harry Kroeker and his wife Heather Kroeker. They are visiting here today from the riding of Fort Langley-Aldergrove. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: It's my pleasure to introduce to the House today the father of my ministerial assistant, John Wilson. He's another John Wilson, and this one's from Kelowna. He is in the members' gallery visiting us today, and I'd ask the House to make him welcome.

A. Sanders: It's my privilege to introduce to the House Cindy Bourne. She is my constituency assistant in Vernon and a very fine person. Would we please make her welcome.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'd like to introduce to the House Maria Bucar and Rob Ferrier. Rob is my nephew from Prince George, although he's now residing in Victoria. Also in the gallery is Lawrence Pilon from MacMillan Bloedel, who is here as a guest of members of my office staff. Please make them welcome.

B. Goodacre: Visiting Victoria today from Bulkley Valley-Stikine is Jamie Sterritt from Hazelton. I'd like the House to make him welcome.

Oral Questions

MAVIS FLANDERS CASE

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, we had all hoped that we would have learned lasting lessons from the death of Matthew Vaudreuil. Events of the last week have suggested that we may not have learned enough.

Matthew's mother repeatedly rejected requests for access to her home. When they finally did get into her home, they found a place that they called unfit for human habitation. Now, in the Flanders case, we have a similar circumstance. Again, ministry workers were denied access. Again, when we finally did get access to the home, we found a place that was, I think, in the minds of all members of this House, unfit for human habitation: used syringes, bottles of pills, rotting food, garbage -- certainly not a place that any of us would want any young British Columbian to be brought up in.

Can the minister tell the House: why, when a ministry worker is denied access, are there not immediate suspicions raised? And why does it not generate an immediate response from the ministry?

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm pleased to actually rise for the first time as the Minister for Children and Families. I would have chosen to rise on a happier issue had I had that choice.

I think it's important to acknowledge -- all of us, I think -- that nobody would want any child to go through the kind of tragedy that this little boy has. As people know, I have ordered a review of the circumstances surrounding this. It's important to note that with this particular family, this little boy had been apprehended and had been returned to mom under a court order with mandatory conditions of supervision, which included ten weeks of alcohol and drug counselling, which she successfully completed; family or parent classes, which she successfully completed; and drop-in counselling and visiting with social workers, all of which she successfully completed.

The supervision order therefore was not continued, because she had met all of those conditions. Since December 12, when the supervision order finished, she has visited every single day at a neighbourhood house, where she has seen homemakers who provide respite care for her child, and social workers and workers at the neighbourhood house, none of whom raised any conditions around child protection with us.

However, just to be very sure, I still want us to look back and see if there is anything -- anything, hon. Speaker -- that could have been done by this ministry, by the community, by the police, by the neighbourhood, by anyone to prevent this tragedy -- which is what all of us would want.

G. Campbell: I understand the minister's concern with regard to this, and I appreciate her response. But I am still perplexed as to how a child can go from requiring intensive supervision, or a situation can require intensive supervision. . .one where the woman is going every single day, and suddenly for six days she's not there and no one notices. I think that is cause for concern for all of us. I think, when you see the home that that young person was brought up in, that is a huge concern for all of us.

Again I ask the minister: how do you go from being a child who is apprehended, to requiring intensive support and intensive care from ministry officials, to being virtually unsupervised, in the space of a month?

Hon. P. Priddy: Clearly those are the issues that the review will look at. But I did say and will just note again that it had been a very significant supervision order. The mother had met all the criteria of that. People were seeing this mom and child every day until about three or four days before her death. In point of fact, her family and the people who were working with her were very shocked at what happened, had no idea that this could happen to her, were very pleased with her progress and were pleased with the services she had accessed.

This is clearly a horrible tragedy, and we will review that. We will make that public. If any members of the opposition have additional thoughts about how we should approach this -- and I mean that most sincerely -- I would really be grateful if they would come and talk with me, because we'll be pleased to include that.

G. Campbell: I have a suggestion for the minister, then. I would ask the minister to undertake that the review will be a

[ Page 2222 ]

full, impartial and independent review, because we know that the Children and Families ministry does not have a very good record with their own reviews, and I think an independent review is what's going to be essential for us to make sure that we don't make these same mistakes again.

[2:15]

M. Coell: The Minister for Children and Families has stated that this tragedy is not the result of high caseloads in her ministry. At the same time, the BCGEU representative for social workers has said exactly the opposite and has warned British Columbians that they should expect to hear more disturbing stories of this sort.

To the minister: whose explanation should we believe, the minister's or the front-line social workers'?

Hon. P. Priddy: I think what I was quoted as saying was that the preliminary information I had on the weekend did not indicate that this particular tragedy was a result of high caseloads. I have never said that caseloads were not an issue.

I was actually quite saddened and disappointed to hear both the member opposite and people from the BCGEU, without any of the information around this case, assume that social workers had done something wrong -- without any of the preliminary information. I find it sort of disappointing that people would make that leap immediately and assume that a colleague had made an error without knowing any of the information around it.

M. Coell: Mavis Flanders was known to the ministry as a substance abuser. It was reported that Ms. Flanders died sometime around March 20, apparently hours or days after receiving her income assistance cheque. Can the minister tell us if there are any special procedures for monitoring the children of known substance abusers on the days after income assistance cheques are issued?

Hon. P. Priddy: There will be in certain circumstances, based on the circumstances of the family. But I would note again that this was a mother who had successfully completed a drug and alcohol counselling program. We do not yet have the results of the coroner's report. The substance abuse that the mother was known to have done is totally unrelated to what we have seen in the paper. So I do await the coroner's report to have that kind of confirmation.

If the question is, for everybody who is known to receive income assistance and have any kind of issue with alcohol or drugs, does someone see that family -- of which there are literally probably tens of thousands -- every single time they receive a cheque? the answer is no, that would be based on the circumstances of the family -- and this mom had successfully completed drug and alcohol counselling.

M. de Jong: The obvious fact is that, as successful as this lady might have been, those programs weren't successful enough. As we've heard from the minister, this lady and her son were well known to the ministry. They were receiving -- or were supposed to be receiving -- home care, apparently twice a week. Ms. Flanders was supposed to be receiving the assistance of an assigned social worker. She was supposed to be receiving counselling and support. She was supposed to be receiving all of that. She was well known to the minister and to the ministry.

Can the minister tell us, though, in spite of all that she's offered this afternoon, approximately how many times an official from the ministry actually went into the Flanders home in the month preceding this woman's death?

Hon. P. Priddy: Two things. One of them is that I don't as yet -- and I will at the end of the review -- have the information about how often someone was in the home. I do need to remind people that the mandatory supervision was completed. I guess we could all have the debate about whether we insist we go into everyone's home, and maybe that's a debate we should have and that people would agree on.

But I do want to make the point that Ms. Flanders was supposed to be receiving counselling, respite care at the neighbourhood house from home support workers, etc. She was not "supposed to be"; she indeed was receiving those on a regular basis until very shortly before her death.

M. de Jong: We're advised, and the minister has confirmed again this afternoon, that Mavis Flanders's son was returned to her on a number of conditions. One of those conditions was that she submit to regular visits by home care workers. Apparently those home care workers did attend, but when they knocked on the door and there was no answer, apparently, they simply left, and there was, apparently, no follow-up.

Can the minister tell this House what instructions her home care workers receive when families known to the ministry are failing to comply, either purposely or inadvertently, with the terms and the conditions of the release of their child?

Hon. P. Priddy: Two things again, I guess. One of them is that the services that this mom was receiving, the home support services. . . . We have to be careful when we talk about homemaker or home support. It doesn't always mean someone going into the home. This was respite care she was receiving at the neighbourhood house, where she left her child with a home support worker so she could do courses, so she could go to doctors' appointments, so she could do whatever. So that was respite care she accessed at the neighbourhood house.

The condition was not that they go to the mother's home, as I understand it at this stage. Now, the review will obviously pull out that information, but my understanding from what I've looked at so far is that she received that service at the neighbourhood house. The condition was not that they go to her home. Let me again say that she met all the conditions of her mandatory supervision.

ABORIGINAL GAMING RIGHTS

J. Weisgerber: My question is for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. This government's rush toward a Las Vegas-style casino begs the question of jurisdiction on-reserve. The Nis g a'a agreement-in-principle provides for shared jurisdiction over gambling on Nis g a'a lands. Could the minister explain to me why on earth any native band or government would require constitutional protection and jurisdiction over gaming? Or has the minister still decided, on the lack of evidence coming out of the courts, that aboriginal rights to gaming exist in this province?

Hon. J. Cashore: The question, as I understand it, is in the context of the Nis g a'a agreement-in-principle. That agreement-in-principle is being negotiated towards a final document. The issues that the hon. member is referring to are issues that, of course, inform those who are in the process of those negotiations.

[ Page 2223 ]

J. Weisgerber: One would have assumed the negotiators might have spoken with the minister responsible. To come and say that it's going forward for debate and for final resolution. . . . We've been out debating the elements of the Nis g a'a agreement for six months. Part of that covers gaming.

Does the minister believe that the right to game and to manage gaming is an aboriginal right that exists in this province today? That's the question. Do you believe, in spite of the rulings by the courts, that the right for aboriginals to manage gaming on reserves exists today?

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, the value of a treaty in the modern context is that it will define such issues.

HOSPITAL SOCIETIES AMALGAMATION

S. Hawkins: My question is to the Minister of Health. Hospital societies around the province have voted overwhelmingly against being forced into amalgamation with this NDP government, because they don't trust them. The minister's solution was to fire the volunteer hospital boards without notice and to abolish community elections. The minister is going around the province vowing better teamwork, but she has eliminated the team.

Can the Minister of Health tell us how firing community health boards and replacing them with Victoria appointees can possibly bring health care closer to home?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's unfortunate that the Health critic for the Liberals continues to fearmonger and to put in jeopardy people's confidence in our health care system. There are 15 hospital societies that have voted against amalgamation, out of 122. The vast majority of health societies have voted to amalgamate, to get on with better teamwork and better care, to take the $300 million more this year than last that they have to deliver health care services.

They're working together. They're working with continuing-care homes. They're working together with acute care hospitals, with public health officials, with mental health officials. The vast majority of health societies in this province have voted to amalgamate. They're getting on with it.

For those that refuse to move forward, that are worried about their own concerns -- which have all been answered, which are unfounded -- in their own communities, it is necessary for us to put in place a public administrator, so that we can actually get on with better teamwork, better care -- a government that's leading on this issue in Canada.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Petitions

G. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of 666 constituents of mine concerned with the possible closure of Chase courthouse. The petition reads: "We the taxpayers of Chase, B.C., are losing our courthouse, and we are enraged that another of our vital services is being taken away by this government."

Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition to present on behalf of 235 constituents of mine concerned about the erosion of Bolean Creek, near Falkland. The petition reads:

"To the Honourable the Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia, in Legislature assembled.

"The petition of the undersigned, residents and property owners of Falkland, in the regional district of Columbia-Shuswap, states that:

"Whereas the townsite and adjacent properties of the community of Falkland are located on the delta and floodplain at the intersection of Bolean Creek and Salmon River, and

"Whereas the banks of Bolean Creek were seriously destabilized by the severe flooding in the spring of 1996, and

"Whereas expanded logging activity in the watershed for Bolean, Chase and Silver creeks continues, increasing the rapidity and volume of runoff, and

"Whereas it is impossible to predict when the combination of rapid snow melt, heavy rain and further diversion of Bolean Creek will recur,

"Your petitioners respectfully request that the honourable House take such action as may be deemed appropriate, before April 1997, to restore Bolean Creek to its original streambed, and, for as long as necessary, to enhance the natural containment factors that will prevent further damage to property and displacement of community members.

"Dated this second day of December, 1996."

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate

(continued)

J. Weisgerber: It's a pleasure to stand and respond to the budget speech. It's a pleasure to have an opportunity to respond to what the minister rather wistfully referred to as a prudent budget. One can only think that if he were speaking at the university, he might have referred to it as a politically expedient budget, because that certainly is a far better description of what we heard read in this House last week.

Tragically, members of the government believe they are going to be rewarded -- in public opinion polls -- by continuing to mislead taxpayers about the true growth in the size of the government's spending. They think it's politically expedient to pull the wool over the eyes of international investors and bond-rating agencies. They'll never succeed. Bond-rating agencies saw through this budget in the blink of an eye -- a budget that was crafted to deliberately mislead British Columbians as to the direction this government is heading.

There's one fatal flaw in this budget, one fatal flaw in this line of thinking: it doesn't add up. The budget doesn't add up, and neither do the numbers in the budget. The budget has about as much credibility, Mr. Speaker, as O.J. Simpson. It's a fraud just waiting to be exposed, and it, too, is its own worst witness.

There's one overriding fact that makes a mockery of any pretence to fiscal responsibility. It's right here in black and white, on page 83. The total provincial debt is up another $1.4 billion, and it will soon stand -- if it doesn't today -- at $31 billion. It's incredible to know that in this same document, taxpayer-supported debt -- debt exclusive of those moneys owed by Crown corporations and other agencies of government -- now stands at $23 billion. Only six years ago, when this government took office, that figure stood at $10 billion.

[2:30]

It's important for us to realize that successive British Columbia governments -- Liberal governments, Conservative governments, coalition governments, the NDP government of the 1970s and all of those bad old Socred governments; all of them combined over a period of nearly 130 years -- built a deficit and a debt of $10 billion. Too high, too much money for British Columbians to owe, but after 125 years this province had a taxpayer-supported debt of $10 billion. It's incredible,

[ Page 2224 ]

it's alarming, it's frightening to understand that after six years, that debt is up by 130 percent. Today we owe $23 billion, which is going to be paid by taxpayers.

I look back at the history of this province over the 125 or 130 years, and I look at the capital investments made: hydro dams, railways, a highway infrastructure, sewer and water and electricity in communities. When did that happen? During the last six years? With the sole exception of the Island Highway -- which a down payment isn't even made on yet -- there is no capital that the government can proudly point to. There is no new round of hospital and school construction that they can point to. They promised a bunch on the eve of an election. When were the big buildings. . .?

Interjections.

J. Weisgerber: Oh, the members. . . . We'll hear another pathetic defence, I'm sure, from the Minister of Education, who, to his great embarrassment, announced the first round of school construction, came away from that with his tail between his legs, and has now promised schools for which the planning hasn't even started yet. That minister has a lot to answer for. His heckling in here falls just a little bit flat. But anyway, Mr. Speaker, I digress.

I think back. I look at this province, a marvellously developed province, with port facilities, with rail facilities, with good public infrastructure. That wasn't built in the last six years while the government debt was increasing by 130 percent. It simply is a fact of life that that $13 billion in new tax-supported debt was, in large measure, spent on government operations: money borrowed to buy groceries, if you put it in the parlance of the household budget. Not a new home, not a renovation, not another room on the back, but most of that money was frittered away on daily operations that should have been paid out of the operating budget.

So, Mr. Speaker, to say "prudent" is to believe that anybody in British Columbia is gullible enough to believe that kind of rhetoric. It's sad to think that if you simply say often enough that it's prudent, it becomes prudent; to say often enough that it's balanced, somehow, regardless of what the figures say, it becomes balanced. Taxpayers know it's not prudent to raise hidden taxes. Anglers know that another broken promise was no tax increases. We've looked at a combined debt that has grown 130 percent, while other governments everywhere are controlling debt. Even the NDP government in Saskatchewan actually balances its budget.

You have to ask yourself, Mr. Speaker. . . . If in fact the government states that the deficit last year was $395 million and this year will be $185 million, based on the consolidated revenue fund, I have to ask: who could I get, in a non-partisan way, to look at this budget and give me the honest goods, the true goods? My first answer would be the auditor general. So I looked to the auditor general to see what the auditor general had to say about the government's continued use of the consolidated revenue fund as its mechanism for reporting the finances of this province. Back as far as 1993-94, in his annual report, the auditor general said:

"We believe that using the information from the consolidated revenue fund in government publications could be misleading, as it does not reflect the government's total operations. For example, the government's frequent reference to the deficit taken from the consolidated revenue fund likely causes considerable misunderstanding amongst the public as to what the government deficit really is. We therefore believe that in all its financial publications, the government should communicate its fiscal position using information extracted from the

summary financial statements."

Here's what the auditor general says the real deficit is, and again I refer to the budget -- page 25, for anyone who might be fortunate enough to have a copy. According to the budget itself, using the auditor general's methods of reporting debt, last year's deficit was not $395 million; it was $748 million. The deficit this year is not $185 million; it's $886 million.

The budget deficit is not going down, as the Minister of Finance likes to portray. When he can't talk about a balanced budget any longer, he says that the size of our deficit is shrinking. But that's not so, not according to the auditor general, not according to the proper way of reporting. The deficit's going up, and it's going up by $886 million this year. The real amount of overspending is almost five times higher than is claimed in the budget documents themselves, and that's just the deficit. The total debt of the province this year: up another $1.4 billion.

The government continues to try and cause enough smoke around this issue, create enough mirrors, to lead people to believe that perhaps the fiscal situation in the province is improving, if not under control, but the numbers themselves suggest exactly the opposite. When debt is falling, deficits are falling in most other jurisdictions. One has to only look across our border to the east, to our neighbouring province of Alberta -- which is only ten miles from where my home is in Dawson Creek -- and see a dramatically different picture: budgets in surplus, deficits gone and debt actually being reduced.

The minister says that here it's impossible; it can't be done. But until we get debt and deficit under control, we are going to pay a very high price.

Anyone that owes money on their credit card understands what higher debt means. It means a higher interest payment to the bank. Mr. Speaker, the government's debt is no different than your credit card debt or mine. If we don't make the payments on time, if there are interest payments that accrue, they go to the bank. Isn't it marvellous that this party, this government, that is so contemptuous of banks and financial institutions, actually winds up being their biggest supporters?

I suppose, on a somewhat partisan note, it will be encouraging that in their latest convention, they allowed for contributions from corporations to the New Democratic Party. Indeed, one shouldn't be at all surprised to see some of the major financial institutions show up on that next list of contributors, because who is a better customer than these folks here? You've got the backing of three million British Columbians borrowing a nice tidy $30 billion a year. That's a very, very good customer. And this very good customer across the way has taken the direct debt up by 130 percent.

When the bank's other customers are shedding debt, this very good customer over here -- the B.C. government, the New Democratic government -- is adding to the debt. Their debt's getting bigger. They're buying more from the banks, relatively, than any other government in the country. So I expect the bagmen will be knocking, and I expect disclosures will show that they won't come away empty-handed.

Looking at budget figures, interest on taxpayer-supported debt will be $1.8 billion this year. That is more than double the amount paid by the province in interest in the year 1991 -- at a time when we have all-time low interest rates. Imagine the mess we'll have, Mr. Speaker, if the trend continues in the other direction, as it is today, and we start to see interest back at 10, 11 or 12 percent. Then the rubber will hit the road; then the government is going to have to decide whether we continue the spiral of debt, albeit accelerated, or whether services then have to be cut back in a dramatic way.

[ Page 2225 ]

As one looks at those government documents, it's important to understand that the province now spends more money on interest payments to banks and other institutions than it does on children, families and seniors programs combined -- again, I remind you, Mr. Speaker, at a time of all-time low interest rates. Worse yet, this prudent budget will most likely result in the province's credit rating being downgraded and interest rates increasing to compensate. Lenders say that you're a poorer risk than you were last year or the year before, so the spread between prime and what they charge you will have to go up a bit.

You'll move not into the category of the provinces enjoying the highest credit ratings but into that second group for this time, and if you carry on at the rate you're going, your credit rating will continue to deteriorate. There's no magic to this. It says either keep your promises, pay your bills on time, follow the trend of the country at reducing expenditures and paying down debt, or your credit rating will suffer as a result. No magic.

Ask the people of New Zealand. They ignored the warnings, and the people who wound up paying the most serious price were those that the government would describe as those they seek to protect. When the international community moves in, when the International Monetary Fund takes control of an economy -- which it will do if spending continues to move out of control -- they are far more heartless than any government and any party in this Legislature would ever dare to be. Therein lies the risk and the tragedy of this so-called prudent budget, which doesn't reduce government expenditures and doesn't reduce the deficit, but in fact does the opposite.

[2:45]

One has to wonder what is happening with international investors. What are they thinking about British Columbia? Moody's Investors Service Inc. has put B.C. on a credit review, and they say:

"The review is prompted by the continued difficulties confronting the current government in instituting strategies necessary to restore fiscal balance and financial flexibility. For the past two years, the province has enacted budgets which, although initially projected to be balanced, have failed to meet this target. The continuing poor financial performance reflects the lack of sufficient policies to address the deficit."

That's what the international community thinks when it looks at the shenanigans that have gone on in this province around budget, budget reporting and performance by the government at the end of the fiscal year.

In fact, the government announced with this budget -- my

interpretation -- that it has given up entirely on the notion of debt reduction. It has simply said: "We abandon any pretext at trying to control or pay down the debt." Instead, we've thrown out the debt management plan, much heralded by the previous NDP government just two years ago. Gone is the commitment to maintaining B.C.'s top credit rating. Gone is the plan to reduce the debt to 18 percent of the province's wealth creation, or 18 percent of GDP. Instead, we see it moving upward to 21 percent.

Gone is the commitment made only two years ago by this government on the eve of an election to eliminate the direct taxpayer-supported debt of the province. It's gone. It simply doesn't exist anymore in the financial documents of the province. Somewhere in the translation -- the printing -- between last year's budget and this year's budget, the debt management plan just disappeared. It's tragic. And that's the new, prudent fiscal management plan.

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: Mr. Speaker, one can only assume that the Finance minister is having a little fun with us as he reads off some of these documents.

This year, in a year when the government has promised no tax increases, new fees and increased fees and licences will actually add $300 million to government revenue. Instead of cutting spending, the government is breaking yet another election promise, and it's looking to gambling, looking to gaming, looking to the slot machines and looking to Las Vegas-style casinos to answer the problem.

You know and I know, Mr. Speaker, that not everybody on the government side agrees with that strategy. I don't agree with it. I don't mind people going to Las Vegas. I don't mind people gaming, if they are in a position to do so. But I do disagree with putting slot machines in bars, convenience stores and corner groceries. I do disagree with people using money directed for families -- money that's been budgeted for children winding up in a slot machine in an unprepared gambling activity.

If somebody wants to put out $100 or $1,000 -- or, heaven help them, if they've got it, $100,000 -- and fly to Las Vegas, knowing that they're prepared to lose it, that's one thing. Going down to the corner store for groceries and vegetables and coming home with used lottery tickets is quite another, and that's where I personally find government-sponsored gambling to be offensive.

In addition to looking to gaming to bail itself out, the government has looked to municipal government to do its dirty work. They have said to governments: "Look, there's going to be 30 percent less in transfer payments to you. We expect you to provide the same services, but we're going to give you a lot less money to do it. We're not going to increase taxes. We're going to make municipal government increase taxes." That is how that little game works, and I don't think anybody has been fooled by it.

Unconditional grants have simply been eliminated unilaterally in the face of a law that says they can't be. Government has simply said: "We're not giving you the money anymore. Albeit we have legislation that limits even reductions in those payments, we are going to eliminate them." That's not a prudent budget. It's one which is simply duplicitous, and deliberately so.

Crown corporations are being forced to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in extra contributions to government. Hydro doesn't have the money, but they're being forced to pay.

B.C. Ferries. You've got to be kidding! They're trying to get over this other debacle with the fast ferries. They're trying to figure out how to pay for those fast ferries, and they're hiking up ferry rates. It's not because they have excess revenues they want to contribute to government. It's kind of like Forest Renewal saying: "Gosh, government didn't ask us to give any money to government, but we just felt like we wanted to do it. We just felt this urge to give them a few hundred million dollars. I don't know what it was. It sure wasn't those government representatives who sit on our board. It was just something that we thought would be such a good idea."

I expect the Hydro board probably feels the same way. They probably just had a flash, and said: "Gosh, let's give the government a couple of hundred extra million. Gosh, they're nice fellows, and gee, they're doing it. Things are a little tough, and we're doing so well. Heck, we can just hike up hydro rates. We'll go to the Utilities Commission; they'll look after this."

[ Page 2226 ]

After today, anybody who wants to take a ferry anywhere in this province will understand precisely how the system works when they buy their ticket to get on the ferry, because the rates are up today. In part, they're up because this government is demanding more money from a corporation that many argue is a necessary part of the transportation system. The government, with all this kind of activity, still can't balance its books.

I had a little laugh when I read the

summary of user fees. It's in "Budget 97 Reports" as well. On page 51, it says: "In some cases, program efficiencies can be realized by eliminating fees that are too costly to administer, streamlining fee schedules and simplifying licence-issuing and regulatory inspection processes." That suggests to me that there are some fees that government charges that are simply more expensive to collect than they're worth.

In his response to the budget, I challenge the Minister of Finance to outline for me three fees or licences that are being eliminated. I won't say one, because there actually might be one. So I'm going to put him on the hook and say that out of the four or five hundred thousand different fees, licences and regulatory collections, I'd like him to find three that will actually be eliminated, consistent with the budget. If he does, I will take comfort in knowing that for at least two groups of people, I was successful in getting the minister to drop a couple of fees.

An Hon. Member: Retroactively.

J. Weisgerber: Retroactively.

Does anyone really believe the government is going to drop fees and licences? I don't think so. This little

section on page 51 says: "Wherever possible and practical, user groups are consulted and notified about changes. . .prior to the introduction of changes." I wonder if the folks getting on the ferry today wonder if they were away when the consultations were made. Did they miss the phone call? Were they out at the grocery store? When the next people who get in an ambulance find that fees are way up for ambulance services, I wonder if they will wonder where they were when the consultation was done. Were they down at the doctor's office getting a bit of health care and they missed the call -- missed the consultation?

I wonder which fishermen will come forward -- which anglers will come forward -- to identify themselves as among those who were consulted. I wonder who you consult about jacking up probate fees, because the people who are most affected usually aren't in a position to be able to respond to consultation. Perhaps some of their families may have been consulted. I guess I could stand here for the rest of my 30 minutes and tick off the number of people who might have anticipated consultation and found themselves denied it.

I'm not going to repeat all the various ways in which this government is masking the true size of government and the growth in government. The official opposition's Finance critic did an excellent job of making that case, and I'll leave it to him, except to say that it's reprehensible for this government to be shuffling millions of dollars in spending every year off to Crown corporations, the Transportation Financing Authority being a classic example.

When I was elected to this House in 1986, the budget for the Ministry of Transportation was a billion dollars, more or less, and it stayed at a pretty consistent billion dollars a year over most of the five years after I was elected. About half of that billion dollars went into paying for new highway construction; the other half went toward rehabilitation -- about $200 million, as I recall, and another $300 million for maintenance.

The Ministry of Transportation has been reduced to the ministry of maintenance. Everything else is off the books. None of the rest of it shows in the government's budget. If, for example, the government simply accounted for the capital expenditures on highways in its budget, we would have a real deficit near $1.5 billion, if one takes the auditor general's figures and properly accounts for highway construction.

Forest Renewal B.C. is a story that has been told many times over, but now we have a new agency for tourism -- and for fisheries renewal. My, it must send shivers up the spine of any commercial fisher in this province to think that after Forest Renewal the government would actually have the audacity -- the absolute cheek -- to create a fisheries renewal program. It does say that if you're just willing to go out there and stick your face out, sometimes you get away with it.

The real tragedy is that not only is the government spending more money, it's getting less bang for every buck it spends. The more money is spent on interest, the less money is available for services. Public sector wages and benefits have gone through the roof. The Premier said he was going to cut 5,500 positions. I saw John Shields with Vaughn Palmer on "Voice of the Province." He said that 14 was the count he had. Now we know that since that time, a month or so ago, the government has actually gone back and got authorization to hire 1,400 people.

[3:00]

I know that unfortunately my time has elapsed. I wanted to speak a little bit about the effect of this budget on the people of Peace River South, and perhaps I will take that opportunity during the throne speech debate.

Hon. L. Boone: Before I get into talking about this budget and telling everybody what a wonderful budget it is, I want the House to join me in a momentous occasion today. Today we are celebrating the win of the Prince George Cougars -- formerly the Victoria Cougars -- in the first round of playoffs against the Portland Winterhawks. It took taking the Cougars from a losing team here in Victoria and transporting them to the middle of the province to make them into the winners we have in Prince George today, and they are going to go on and win in the second-round playoffs. So please join me in congratulating them.

I am proud to stand and support this budget. You know, it's not an easy time for governments or for taxpayers in this province. Our expectations are high. We want for our children what we had for ourselves, and you know that's not always possible. We want good-paying jobs for them, we want a clean environment and we want a good social safety net. That's hard to achieve today.

I remember when I first went to Prince George in 1969. I was teaching then, and I had students coming up to me and saying: "I don't need to learn this. I'm going to go out into the woods, and I'm going to earn more money than you do." And you know, that was true. They did that. Without getting a graduation certificate, they could go out into the woods and earn more money than you did in many professional jobs. Well, those days are over, and they won't be coming back again. Tech changes made it so. There are fewer jobs out there for everybody. The types of jobs are changing so that you can no longer go onto a greenchain and learn to operate it. You have to have some skills in the workplace.

[ Page 2227 ]

We have higher social costs. We have an aging population -- and I am one of them, unfortunately, who is aging.

Interjections.

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, it's true. I am one of the generations that is aging. In this House, we are all aging rapidly -- some of us faster than others -- and our social safety net has to support all of us baby-boomers when, in fact, we get to the point where we are going to require those health care costs. We've got people moving to this province. We welcome them here, but those are costs we have to absorb.

Tech change is driving our health care costs. For each and every new technology that comes along, every time we are able to keep somebody alive longer -- and thank goodness we are able to do so -- it costs a lot of money. For every child that comes along and is born prematurely. . . . Ten years ago, that child may not have lived. I'm glad they are doing so now, but that costs a lot of money. Those are the costs that are driving up our budgets.

This government was faced with a huge problem this year. We do have a growing population. We have increased needs, and we have, unfortunately, reduced income. We have federal cuts that we have to deal with, and we have less coming from our forest sector. How do we respond?

We could have responded by continuing to spend, and increase taxes. We could have cut all our services, as they did across the border -- as the member before me spoke about and promoted. But we rejected that because we believe that our social safety net and our social programs are very important to us. We could have reduced spending and protected services such as health and education, and that is what we have chosen to do.

I have stated that I am proud of this budget. I am proud of it because it makes some difficult decisions and some difficult choices, but I can't say that I particularly like it. I would like to have a lot more money for just about everything there, but the money is not there. To keep our commitments in health and education, we've had to take cuts in just about every other part of government -- some very, very difficult decisions and some very, very difficult choices.

Hon. Speaker, in question period today you heard a petition from some individuals who did not want to have their courthouse closed. Those are the sorts of tough decisions that have had to be made throughout government.

We've reduced the size of some offices, we've seen closures of offices, we've seen closures of courthouses and we've eliminated programs. Across government we've had to do that because, if we didn't, we would not be able to support those programs that we consider essential, which are health and education. We must keep our health and education systems healthy.

Unfortunately, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways has taken a 19 percent decrease. That's a huge decrease to take, and it's very, very difficult for us to keep up our services with that. We have lost literally hundreds of employees. They may not actually have had pink slips, because we have done this through attrition and through early retirement, but we have hundreds fewer people doing the work within the ministry than we had in previous years, and that's very hard. It's very hard on employees, and it's very hard on families.

I make no bones about the fact that the employees throughout this government and throughout my ministry have had a very difficult time of it when they are faced with the possibility of losing their jobs and the possibility that they may not have incomes.

I want to congratulate those people who are working within the ministry -- and working very hard -- to make sure we can maintain the services that are delivered to people, and I want to thank them for helping us make some of the reductions in costs that have enabled us to not lay off as many people as would have been necessary if we had not made some of those reductions.

As I said, we have made reductions through early retirement and through attrition, but it has not been without pain, and the pain, I think, has to be recognized -- not just by this assembly and by the people in this assembly, but by the province as a whole, because our employees out there are doing an excellent job in working under very stressful conditions right now.

This budget recognizes the needs of working people. We have a tax cut for middle and low income -- not corporations, hon. Speaker, like the members opposite would have liked to have seen. We've kept the freeze on ICBC premiums, hydro rates and tuition fees. We've increased health care spending by $300 million and education spending by $63 million. We are the only province in Canada to maintain and increase spending on those very essential services. I think the people out there will eventually recognize that this province is doing what no other province has done, and that is maintaining and increasing our commitment to health and education, and doing so in a fiscally responsible manner.

If you listen to the members opposite -- the Liberal members in particular -- shouting loud and clear about the deficit and debt, they say: "We must reduce. Don't mortgage our children's future. Cut, cut, cut." I understand that philosophy. It's one that I don't necessarily agree with -- that we should cut at all expenses -- but I understand that philosophy. What I can't understand is how these individuals, most of whom come from the business community, can justify saying, "Cut, cut, cut; reduce, reduce, reduce," and then stand in this Legislature over and over and demand that we spend more.

I don't understand that. I don't think anybody can understand it. Perhaps we should get some kind of an economist in here who could really try to make us understand how that is possible. I don't know. Is this voodoo economics? It certainly isn't the kind of economics I understand.

They say: "Build my school." Members from North Vancouver, Langley, Richmond East, Richmond Centre, Okanagan-Vernon, Parksville-Qualicum, Vancouver-Quilchena and Quesnel, and the Leader of the Opposition, all stood here and said: "Build my school. I want my schools built. I don't want you to have a freeze on construction. I want you to build my school, but do it and don't increase the debt. Do it and don't spend any money." It can't be done. It's not possible.

Almost all of them want more programs in everything. I was looking through some clippings the other day, and I saw something about manure. Somebody wanted something to do something. I don't know whether they wanted to study it, but they should certainly know a fair amount about manure over there. But it was something about spending more money on manure over there, more money for schools, more money for health care facilities and for programs. You name it, they want the money for it.

How hypocritical can you be? If they really cared about the debt -- if they really wanted us to reduce spending -- then wouldn't they not be demanding more money? That type of economics just doesn't ring true.

The federal government has been causing us a bit of pain with some of the things they are doing, but the federal govern-

[ Page 2228 ]

ment takes in some $600 million per year on a 10-cents-per-litre gas tax they take into the federal coffers. Provinces across this country have asked the federal government to look inward and see about putting in a national highways program. We are the only developed country in the world that doesn't have a national highways program, and we are asking for a modest 2 cents a litre.

We're saying: "Federal government, please give us 2 cents a litre back from your $600 million that you take out of this province every year to put toward a national highways program." Currently, we have received $12 million per year over the last three years. That's $600 million, $12 million. . . . It doesn't really come out.

I'd like to see all the members opposite talk to their cousins in Ottawa and say, "Hey, how about giving us some of that gas money back," so that we can afford to do all those things they want to do in their ridings -- so we can do things such as upgrade the Fraser Highway, as the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove wants, or do the highway between Heffley and Clearwater, as the member for Kamloops-North Thompson wants, or the Lions Gate Bridge. There are any number of those areas.

I'd really appreciate it if the members opposite would get on that bandwagon and join with us and with all other provinces and the BCAA to ask their federal counterparts for that 2 cents a litre. I doubt that's going to happen, however.

For years now, the federal government has been reducing its deficit. They've been reducing it how? By off-loading on us, by off-loading their debt onto this government, by saying: "You reduce." They have literally neglected and abandoned their commitment to health and education by off-loading onto the provincial government.

Now we're asking the Liberals over here to ask their federal counterparts not to do that. But what have they done? The Liberals over there actually have defended their federal counterparts. They've said: "It's okay if you off-load on the provinces, because there's only one taxpayer." I've heard that -- how many times have you heard that? -- many times over the past years. There is only one taxpayer; they're right, hon. Speaker. We've watched them cut transfer payments in health and education -- no objection, no whimper. They praise the deficit reduction.

They've never said: "Don't do this; this is hurting my hospital." They've never said: "Don't do this; I can't get the school in my riding." They said: "Right on, federal Liberals. Continue to cut there; cut in health and education."

But when it comes time for us. . . . When we turn around and say we can no longer absorb this -- we've done this for years, taken these dollars, handled the cuts, and we say we are going to pass on some of these cuts and ask the municipalities to make some reductions in their costs -- what do they say? All of a sudden it's sacrilegious. "You shouldn't do this. Don't touch those things. You can't off-load." Suddenly, the one-taxpayer idea goes down the tube. Suddenly, it doesn't matter that there is one taxpayer.

[3:15]

Hon. Speaker, there is only one taxpayer. We all have to be a part of the solution.

But we can't be expected to be the sandwich being squeezed at both ends, which is what the Liberals opposite want to happen. They want the feds to reduce, but they don't want us to pass on any of those costs down to the municipalities. It's interesting, because what they say to us is that it's okay for the feds to cut but it's not okay for us to cut.

If members opposite are really concerned about the deficit, if they want to be taken seriously, then I would like to ask them to do a few things. Don't ask for more money with every breath you take. Don't stand here in this House, and in every newspaper around, saying: "I want more money for this. I need more money for my highways, my bridge, my school, my hospital -- you name it. I don't want to see the downtown revitalization program end." Don't say that you don't want these things to happen. Don't complain about every reduction made by government.

Don't complain when your courthouse or your Human Resources office is closed, or one of your Transportation and Highways offices may be downsized, or your Forest Service office is downsized.

Members, when you cut in government, you lose services. When you cut, you reduce employees. That is the result of cuts. It cannot be done without having some pain. We have to have those pains.

Don't demand tax breaks for your corporate friends, because the people out here will not stand for that. The people will not stand for corporations getting tax breaks while the middle-income earner is picking up all the load. Don't object when fees are increased to make programs pay for themselves; don't do these things. And don't defend federal off-loading of health and education responsibilities.

If you do that, then we'll believe you're serious about reducing the debt and the deficit. If you do those things, then we will take what you say to heart. If you tell me, "Don't worry, Lois, I am not concerned about my bridge; I don't need my bridge; I want all that money to go back into the debt and the deficit," and if you go through estimates and not one of you comes forth and asks for something instead of the $2.6 billion worth of spending that you asked of me last year, then I'll believe you're serious about reducing the debt and the deficit.

Until such time as you're willing to stand there and say you don't want those things, then I will not believe you. When you do that, I will join with you in making sure that we obtain those things.

This is a budget that we can defend. It is a good budget. It's a budget that we can live with and be proud of. Health care dollars are up. The deficit is down. Education dollars are up. Spending is down. Jobs are up. Taxes are down. Given the conditions we have today, with the problems that the average taxpayer has out there, I think this is the best, most prudent budget that we as a government could put forth today. I am pleased to stand here and support it in this House and vote with it. I urge the members opposite: stand by your principles. Vote with us in support of this budget.

D. Jarvis: This is about the fourth or fifth budget I think I've stood up to speak to. It's rather interesting. I was looking back at '93, and I saw where I said almost the same thing as I plan to say today, ostensibly because this government hasn't done anything in the last three or four years. So my job here -- as you probably are aware, Mr. Speaker -- as a member of the opposition is not really to criticize government. It is to be here as the watchdog, to make sure that government knows what they're doing, that they're making a viable contribution and helping put forward legislation that is to the betterment of all the citizens of this province.

However, I do not find this to be a prudent budget, as the Finance minister has said. Nor do I half disagree with him when he says: "They don't really have to believe what I say." Now, those are two remarkable statements made by the Minister of Finance, especially when he asks us not to believe him.

Then the Minister of Highways, who just finished, makes the statement that we've got to create more jobs. I guess there weren't as many jobs around as were available to her when

[ Page 2229 ]

she was younger -- obviously a lot younger. However, I see there's no possible way that this budget's main theme, which is to create jobs, can be done if we do not have some kind of a workable plan in which we are going to invite business and industry into this province to create jobs. Government doesn't create jobs. Government creates an environment in which jobs are created. This budget asserts that the government will create some 44,000 new jobs. Now, where will these jobs come from -- when this same Premier last year promised that we'd have 40,000-odd jobs and none of them appeared? It wasn't fulfilled.

The Premier said: "Get 21,000 jobs this year from forestry." We, and I think the forest industry, say: "How do we expect this to happen when we see major lumber producers sliding into receivership, small mills going down left and right?" I have one in my own riding that closed down last month, 154 people -- my constituents -- that went out of work. It's not a big mill, but just one of the many that are falling into this hole that this government has created.

I guess the intention of the government is to blackmail the forest industry into producing new jobs, or their supplies will be cut off. I think the actual wording is that they will trade their cut allowances for jobs. This is sort of nonsense, because you cannot create jobs when you are going broke or you have no supply. The world markets are down. Things are a little different from what they were before. How do companies that are in a loss position expect to finance new jobs?

When government intends to pull out revenue from the forests at the same rate as they did last year, and everything is going down, it's an expectation beyond realization to think they can do that. If the forest companies lost money last year, and if the market conditions are down from last year, where is the common sense in this situation -- to create more jobs?

Or is this just more rhetoric? The Minister of Finance said it was one of the reasons why the budget was overestimated last year. To create 21,000 new jobs with this scenario is perhaps more than can be expected, Mr. Speaker. So although the rhetoric is for 21,000 new jobs from forestry, the expectation will probably be what this government said they would do last year when they wanted to create jobs. That was zero -- zero, the number of jobs that they create.

As you're probably aware, the Premier's favourite book, we have been told now, is The End of Work . He even brought the author to your convention this year -- so you would all learn how to stop working, obviously, because you're certainly not doing a good job where you are, in creating jobs in this province.

The Premier and the Finance minister are working on the premise that we deserve a shorter workweek. This is one of the government's answers, a short workweek, on the theory that more people will be able to have a job. Well, we know that this does not work, Mr. Speaker. It only makes industry less competitive. We saw what happened in the health care accord, in this instance: costs went up. Another social experiment is not the answer to create wealth and work and revenue for this province. It's bound to fail.

We have already had examples of our industry losing its competitive edge to Alberta, Washington State and other jurisdictions, where they don't pay sales tax on equipment and machinery, for example. When you have a deficit and a ballooning debt, you should try to create incentives for business. Our industry needs to be on a competitive basis if it wants to survive. You don't put on heavy taxes to pay, like the corporation capital tax, even though you have never made a profit.

We need a plan to ease costs, not restrictions -- a plan that creates jobs, one that will not result in or rely on a system of blackmail of an industry so that if they don't create more work, they don't go into business; a plan that encourages, not discourages, economic growth in this province.

When our debt is $30 billion plus, and it's not going down, when we are paying up to approximately $7 million a day in debt service costs alone, we know we are out of control in this province. When our resource industries are healthy and profitable, budget deficits decline. Since 1991 we have had a 100 percent increase in our total debt. What does this mean? This means it is time for some discipline, time to change our spending habits and curtail our excesses that we have going on.

The government has exercised deception. They say one thing and they mean another. We have to look for the real meaning behind the words or their intent. Deception always does appear to follow. The resulting effect is that the citizens in this province are suffering. We have to be smarter than the competition. The taxpayers only want this Premier to present credible, substantive and sensible legislation, which we don't appear to have been given over these past years.

It's time for this government to send quick signals to business that we are ready for investment and open for business. This is not happening. It's time this government said to small businesses that we are prepared to put in adjustments, to lower their corporation taxes and fees and everything, to put them on a sustainable basis so they could be competitive with other jurisdictions that we ourselves trade with. Companies that create meaningful jobs cannot exist or compete when their tax rate is the highest in Canada. More and more, businesses are contemplating moving to Alberta, Washington State and other jurisdictions.

When do we see that the lights have gone on in the Premier's and Finance minister's heads? That is the question, I guess. We all know how. But when are they going to make a change that's to the benefit of the people of British Columbia? We have to look for, as I said, the real meaning behind those words that the Premier has said about trying to create jobs.

One aspect I'd like to go on to is the question of mining in British Columbia. As you know, I've spoken of it before, once or twice. Mining is being hampered by legislative barriers in this province. Environmental groups and aboriginal groups, after years of mineral exploration, have been coming down with a heavy hand as to what this province should be doing with regards to resource industries.

We now see the potential of some small revitalization in the mining industry: the Kemess project, as you know, in central B.C.; the Huckleberry project near Smithers; and the Tulsequah Chief up in the northern part, the northwest corner of British Columbia. Actually, we have nine potential mineral plant mines in this province that are going through the Environmental Assessment Act now and looking forward to creating some wealth for British Columbia -- and for themselves as well.

As a result of the two working together, they're going to create about 7,000 jobs. They're going to be family-supporting jobs, not hamburger flippers. They are going to be paying high wages and benefits. This is what we require in this province, not what we see this government planning through enforcement and blackmail, like in the forest industry.

[3:30]

All those projects that I was mentioning earlier, up in the northern parts of B.C. and in the middle of British Columbia,

[ Page 2230 ]

for example, are facing threats to their existence. Thousands of men and women and the province as a whole receive economic benefits generated from mining. We can't afford to lose these benefits. Yet this present government supports and gives credence to those groups who wish to see no mining whatsoever in British Columbia. Well, this is wrong.

I think this government should be prepared to put in some adjustments to lower the cost and the regulations in mining in this province. Mineral development has been jeopardized in this province by the NDP. One of my associates has said it's almost been killed. It has gone from a little over 30,000 jobs in the late eighties to around 9,700 people now out working. We have a chance to put more to work, but this government has failed to act on it. Mining was once revered and sort of admired, for our development in B.C. Its ingenuity and technology were used and looked upon all over the world and are still being used.

Now we have a government that ignores the basic realities. As I said before, it's a slide down that greasy road that sends B.C. dollars to other jurisdictions and not to our benefit in British Columbia.

Our forestry industry is facing the peril of our growing lack of investment, as well. This will result in an increase in unemployment throughout B.C. So all over B.C. we can see our resource-based communities slowly but surely facing some hardships over the next few years as the jobs continue to disappear. Nothing is put there -- or the environment is not put there -- by this government so that industry and investment could come into this province and enjoy hiring people in the resource areas.

We are seeing this dichotomy between rural and urban areas growing and growing. You cannot blame the rural areas, for this government -- for all of what they say and for all the members that they have from these rural areas. . . . It's a shame to see that they are doing nothing for them. I wonder sometimes how these members of this House that are from rural areas can go back to their constituents and say, "We are doing the best we can for you," when all around them the people and families are having hardships and no work to go to. But the government wants to create more jobs.

The B.C. Forest Practices Code is probably a good example of it, in the sense that overregulation and a lack of good business acumen have caused everyone to question this government's lack of a commonsense approach when it comes to work. Since mid-1994, the FPC or Forest Practices Code has been in effect to look after our forests and to look after our displaced workers. This government said that as a result of hundreds of millions of dollars surcharged by super-stumpage -- a form of taxation -- they would create 5,000 new jobs a year.

Well, it's now been about three years since the Forest Practices Code first went in or has had any effect, because it started in mid-'94. As I say, it's now 1997, and approximately three years have passed. They have only created 947 jobs out of 15,000 that they promised. Where did the other 14,000-odd jobs go to?

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

It appears, Mr. Speaker -- or Madam Speaker, as there has been a change up there -- that the FPC is an out-of-control Crown corporation created by this government to increase more bureaucracy for their benefit and not for the benefit of the resource industries and communities in this province. Administration is spending millions of dollars on the Forest Practices Code without concern for the growing unemployed -- 85 percent of Forest Practices Code funds go to administration and the provincial bureaucracy.

Now this government is going to pull more money out of them to keep their Highways ministry afloat and Education and all the rest of it. They're taking moneys that were put in there for the displaced workers -- taking out their future -- and putting it back into the general coffers of this province. And that is wrong. Their purpose was to create jobs, and it is not working.

So where do we go from here? Overregulation is causing unemployment and a lack of development. The Crown agency set up to help place the workers has failed at this point. We are going to lose our competitive edge in our wealth, caused by a government that is only able to come up with short-term measures, measures that will only postpone the inevitable unless there's a relief of taxation to some degree and the overbearing regulations are relaxed to some point.

It's obvious that our debt is climbing. We're now at $30.9 billion, and we increased it by $1.4 billion through this budget. As the count rises, we wonder if this is even an accurate projection. Or are we being asked to be deceived again, as we were last time? Well, my favourite quote of Gaglardi's, "If I'm telling a lie, it's only because I think I'm telling the truth," may have some bearing in this budget again.

What really is our revenue? What really is our spending? Is this just another jumping-bean projection of this government? Do we have the credibility that we have lost? Do we have it back yet?

This is the government of policy and paralysis; it really is a concern to us here on the opposition side. With no credible economic growth plan, an ever-increasing bureaucracy and no accountability framework which sets targets for this province, we are in a very transparent position.

This government is changing or trying to change the work structure of a resource economy to an information economy. What are they going to do about the retooling of thousands and thousands of our workforce out in those resource areas? Is this part of their plan? Or are they just again hoping that those situations will go away? If it's not their plan, why are they downsizing the resource sector? How do we create wealth and keep our lifestyle a meaningful one? What specifics does this government have, as I said, to retool tens of thousands of workers who are trying to support their families? Do we re-educate them?

Then do we have tens of thousands of unemployed tradesmen? There's something wrong with the way this government is handling the situation.

We have to give more consideration to how to create wealth and encourage investment and development in this province in order to create jobs. All we see at this point is the downgrading of our resource wealth, Madam Speaker, and the uncertainty for investment in this province. All we see is the continued, alarming rise in the relocation of small and large businesses into Alberta, Washington, Oregon and, as I said, other jurisdictions.

Our unemployment figures are growing. Bankruptcies are at record-breaking levels. Taxes and fees and regulations continue to grow, with no plan, I say -- I repeat that there's no plan -- by this government or any positive way to increase our revenue supply on the premise that they are working on.

Our leadership these last five years has been worse than incompetent. Actually, it's been downright dangerous. The Premier and Finance minister are ruining the cornerstones

[ Page 2231 ]

of B.C.'s economy. Forestry and mining, once the two major employers and revenue producers, are under attack. There doesn't seem to be any way out. We are looking at our advantage over other jurisdictions evaporating as our resource market and industries become sunset industries. This government is making B.C.'s economic advantage come down to the common denominator instead of in the opposite direction.

It's quite obvious that the NDP government does not have the knowledge or the wish to create wealth production that could help turn around our budgetary problems. Madam Speaker, I wonder where the Premier and the Finance minister are going to go to look for revenue.

An Hon. Member: Gaming subsidies.

D. Jarvis: This pathetic excuse of a government, I'm afraid, is reaching out to gambling, no-fault insurance and FRBC funds, which were there for displaced forest workers, to help them support their line ministries, instead of. . . .

An Hon. Member: What kind of ministries?

D. Jarvis: Their line ministries.

The Economist magazine, as you are probably aware of, a short while ago -- it's read worldwide -- reported that the people of B.C. have just elected a pack of incompetents, or just a pack of plain -- dare I say the word?

An Hon. Member: No.

D. Jarvis: No, I won't. But you know it starts with a big L. The big L, in this province, is what we've been faced with. This is what other jurisdictions around the world know of us. This is where they're considering putting their money. There's not much confidence being instilled out there by this government.

It's obvious that this '97 budget has not turned the obvious around, Madam Speaker. This NDP government's debt management plan was obviously just another deceitful promise to help them get elected, as with the debt management plan they had last year -- nothing was paid into it or paid down. They convinced the voters that they were serious about keeping their province's debt under control. Yet no attempt was made to follow through. It is obvious that this plan has now been abandoned. No financial responsibility is being shown in this province.

The only real or true way to solve B.C.'s financial problem is with a balanced budget. This naturally should be backed up with truth-in-budgeting laws, which we have asked for over these past years and not received. Our experience in the '95 and '96 budgets shows that just saying you are balanced is obviously not sufficient with this government. There's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that they are fiscally responsible in this government. None of this fiscally responsible attitude has been shown in this past two years. The feeling that this is being shown again is here in this budget.

Only time will tell whether we are going to come out of this without real hurt to our communities throughout this province. Not only are British Columbians watching the budget, but so are the bond-rating agencies around the world.

In most jurisdictions they have a problem of either spending or revenue. However, we in B.C. see both revenue and spending as our main problems, and that's a large, large part of our debt problems. If real wages are to rise and our standard of living is to continue to improve, productivity must increase. I believe there is ample evidence and experience elsewhere to support supply-side politics, even with tax cuts to help boost economic activity and income growth, which is what we need. It goes without saying that this activity also requires a tight monetary policy with it.

We are obviously in trouble in British Columbia's economy. It's growing at less than the Canadian average. Our exports are down, and our GDP has not kept up with the Canadian average or with the increase in our population. We are the only province where our real capital -- our standard- of-living indicator -- fell below the Canadian average this year.

All we ask is that this government show us a plan to create honest wealth, not a plan that gives deficits, debts and loss of rights. We are endowed with the resources, and I think we should use them properly.

[3:45]

I see I have a few minutes left to speak, and I might add a few things about our education system, which this government seems so proud of. They're telling us they have added so much money into it. Well, that's probably going to go right into new construction -- and there's nothing wrong with that -- to get rid of the portables, etc. The important thing is what we have left, which is very little, and the lack of funding for our students in order for them to learn and for our teachers to teach. The funds aren't there.

In North Vancouver-Seymour, for example -- North Vancouver school district 44 -- we have a little over 16,000 students, and this government decided that in their best interests the per capita would go down to $43 per student. That's an approximate $700,000 shortfall in our education system.

How do we expect to compete with other jurisdictions? I'll tell you: because this government, in their stupidity, decided that they're going to have equality in our education system through all the districts around our province. Instead of bringing us all up to the top, they decided that they were going to bring everyone down to the lowest denominator, or so it appears. This is going to be a tragic circumstance that's going to cost us in the years to come. We have 77 percent of our students who are going into grade 1 right now, who will not go to university or a secondary college, or an institution such as BCIT, which is going to teach them a trade.

Not only that, I had figures given to me the other day suggesting that four out of ten students in British Columbia are illiterate. It's really hard to comprehend. I think that this government and previous governments should be ashamed of this situation and should hang their heads. When the Minister of Education says he is doing more for our students than any other jurisdiction in Canada, I tend to wonder whether he is smoking something.

It's just unbelievable when we see these kinds of figures. These kids are coming out of school, anywhere from grade 9 to grade 12, with no skills to compete in this world, because they're not going on to university -- not that there would be a job waiting for them if they went on to university, because we do question that sometimes. There are a lot of people out there with university degrees who are flipping hamburgers, but the majority of our students coming out of school do not have training. They don't have skills in how to compete. So what is this government doing about it? It appears that there's nothing being done about it, and this is a crying shame.

I think I'll close at this point and say that it's kind of a hostile world there, and that this government and its budgetary problems are creating hardships throughout British

[ Page 2232 ]

Columbia. Although we may not feel them right here in this House, believe me, hardships are being created, and even more are going to be created over the years if we do not get our debt under control or put some kind of a management plan in there and seek jobs by saying: "Come to British Columbia. We're not a bad place to be. We have lots of wealth here and lots of hard-working people." We'll create jobs that way. Remember that government doesn't create jobs. It is industry, investment and development that create jobs, and they'll only come to British Columbia if the environment is right. That's this government's job: to create the proper environment.

On that point, I will say that I'm disappointed with this budget. I have felt that it was coming down this way, and although I'm trying to be positive -- as you know from everything I've said in the last 20 or 30 minutes, I've been very positive -- I will not support this budget.

G. Abbott: I'm very pleased to rise today and join in this historic debate. This is a historic budget for a couple of reasons, at least. Among the other things the NDP government has done in its most recent budget is bring us to a record level of debt in this province. This is a historic debate as well, because this NDP government has done something no government has ever done before in British Columbia, and that's to produce a sixth consecutive deficit budget.

No previous government has even come to close to matching this rather sorry record of six consecutive deficit budgets. Not even the governments of Premier Tolmie and Premier Pattullo back in the 1930s during the depth of the Depression even came close to this pitiful record of six consecutive deficit budgets. In contrast, the NDP has governed through prosperous times, times we enjoyed despite -- not because of -- the gross incompetence and mismanagement of the NDP government.

I suspect that this sorry record of six consecutive deficit budgets is unsurpassed by any provincial government anywhere in Canada. We on this side of the House never doubted for a moment that the NDP would produce a sixth consecutive deficit budget, nor do we doubt for a moment that the NDP will go on to produce seven or perhaps even more consecutive deficit budgets. In reality, not many governments after four or five consecutive deficit budgets are likely to get the chance to produce a sixth consecutive deficit budget.

Only by advancing the false claims of surplus budgets in 1995-96 and 1996-97 was this NDP government provided with the opportunity to produce a sixth consecutive deficit budget.

The theme of my speech today is that these two Betty Crocker budgets -- the '95-96 and the '96-97, the two supposedly surplus budgets that were subsequently revealed as bogus budgets -- made inevitable the shameful ripoff of local government in the 1997-98 budget. I know that some of my friends across the floor are asking why these last two budgets are Betty Crocker budgets. It's because both are cookbook budgets, both are recipes for economic diaster in this province and both, in abbreviated terms, are a crock.

An Hon. Member: You don't like Betty Crocker?

G. Abbott: I love Betty Crocker. I just don't like this government.

Budget day in B.C. reminds me more and more of the movie Groundhog Day . The years pass, the circumstances change and sometimes the Finance ministers even change, but the result at the end of the day is always the same -- another deficit budget.

NDP budget days also remind me of a movie I enjoyed with my kids a few years ago, called The NeverEnding Story . I'm thinking that the NDP ought to consider a slight name change here. The NDP, after all, is no longer new. I believe there are a number of members of this House who are younger than the NDP itself. I'm not among them, but you may be, Madam Speaker. You are, I know, quite a bit younger than myself.

Regardless of that issue, the NDP is certainly no longer democratic. The evidence is overwhelming there, particularly with respect to the implementation and the structure of health regionalization in this province. I'd suggest that a change of name to the "never-ending deficit party" would not only have a nice ring to it but would also very accurately convey what the NDP has to offer the people of British Columbia, and that's a never-ending string of deficit budgets.

I was fascinated by the emphasis in both the throne speech and the budget speech on film-making in British Columbia. Perhaps this was a result of the happy convergence of budget and throne speeches with the opening of Planet Hollywood and with the Academy Awards, or perhaps members on the other side, sensing the future, are looking forward to alternative careers. I understand, in fact, that a whole series of Hollywood remakes is being planned to celebrate the first-year performances of this pants-on-fire government.

For example, I understand that there's going to be a remake of Sleepless in Seattle , recast as "Clueless in Victoria," and a remake of Flipper entitled "Flip-Flop," which will feature the Premier and the Attorney General on photo radar. There's also a remake of Casino Royale planned, featuring the Minister of Employment and Investment, in a movie entitled "Casino Sounds Swell." I'm sure the Premier is really excited about his movie role in "Honey, I Shrunk the Provincial Economy," just as the Finance minister, I'm sure, is very excited about his sequel, "Honey, I Blew Up the Budget Deficit."

In fact, there is a whole series of remakes planned around the Betty Crocker budgets. One is the story of a Finance minister who clones the bogus budget of his predecessor. It's entitled "Hello, Dolly." Another is a remake of The Cable Guy entitled "Fable Guy," and Desperately Seeking Susan will be recast as "Desperately Seeking Revenue." However, the movie that the people of B.C. are really looking forward to concerns the court case of Mr. David Stockell, and the name of that movie, of course, is "Total Recall."

Speaking of Mr. Stockell, and shifting sharply yet smoothly to a more serious theme, the pending court case surrounding the impact of the Betty Crocker budgets on the 1996 election is certain to provide valuable insights into the motives and actions of this NDP government. We have already learned a good deal just from the NDP's feeble attempt to have this case thrown out of court. For example, let me quote briefly from the Globe and Mail account of the court proceedings of February 6. This is a direct quote from the Globe and Mail of February 6:

"`Telling voters things that are not true to influence how they vote does not constitute election fraud,' a lawyer for the B.C. New Democratic Party told a B.C. court yesterday. `It's not the same thing as pointing a gun at their head,' said Robert McDiarmid, responding to questions from B.C. Supreme Court Justice Bryan Williams about the meaning of election fraud and illegally enticing voters. `Election promises can be unkept after the campaign is over,' added Mr. McDiarmid."

I don't know much about law, as I'm sure my friends across the way would agree, and I don't know much about finance,

[ Page 2233 ]

but I do know a bit about political history. Everything I know about political history suggests that the controversy surrounding the Betty Crocker budgets and the 1996 provincial election will continue to fascinate historians 50, 100, 200 years from now. The reason. . . .

Interjection.

G. Abbott: I appreciate you finally coming out of your shell. I'm distressed by the absence of interest across the floor here.

The reason that political historians will take such an interest in this for a long time is that the questions at the heart of this controversy are fundamental to democratic government. Were the facts with respect to the provincial government's financial health wilfully misrepresented by the incumbent government? Were British Columbians deprived, as a consequence, of their opportunity to pass judgment on the record of this government?

Political historians will look to a variety of sources in attempting to answer these questions: the debates of this House, the comments made outside the House by prominent figures in the controversy, and perhaps most importantly, they will look to internal documents obtained through freedom of information.

[4:00]

I would like to quote briefly from a couple of these documents to convey a sense of the advice the government was receiving during the critical period. For example, we have here a February-March 1995 briefing note to the hon. Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations of the day. The subject is the emerging fiscal problems in 1996-97: "As outlined to you by Michael Costello and Chris Trumpy at a meeting on February 17, fiscal problems are emerging in 1996-97. The problem is that a fairly large 1996 deficit -- $600 million to $800 million -- is likely."

We also have another communication. This one was between the Minister of Forests of the day, who is now our Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Finance of the day. This is December 20, 1995, and the memo notes:

"You should be aware that information obtained in recent days indicates a significant shortfall in revenue from the 1995-96 forecast due to less harvesting and billed volumes than forecast. This trend is attributable to a rapid decline in markets from last year and less volumes sold than forecast."

Surprisingly, not long after that memo, the projected revenues from forestry were actually increased -- one of the bizarre and as yet unexplained questions associated with this whole controversy.

A final document I would like to quote from is the May 22 revised forecast with respect to the 1995-96 budget:

"Revenue is now expected to be $169 million below the 1995-96 revised forecast. Expenditure is expected to be $58 million above the 1995-96 revised forecast. As a result, the $16 million surplus shown in the 1995-96 budget revised forecast will not materialize. A 1995-96 deficit of $211 million is now expected."

That was May 22, just a week before the provincial election.

Now, did this advice that was tendered by the ministries to the Minister of Finance cause the NDP to be circumspect in their claims regarding provincial finances? Heck, no. They bragged every day in every corner of this province that they had produced two surplus budgets. They didn't say: "We might produce two surplus budgets." They didn't say: "We may produce two surplus budgets." They said: "We have produced two surplus budgets."

The Premier bragged, for example, in response to a question about mandatory balanced-budget legislation, that. . . . This is a quote in the Province , May 22, from the Premier: "We turned a $2.4 billion deficit into two consecutive balanced budgets." The Premier then went on to add, surprisingly, in retrospect: "Actions speak louder than legislation." Given what we now know about the evolution of the Betty Crocker budgets, the Premier's latter comment positively drips with irony. Or, as Betty Crocker used to say, the proof is in the pudding.

This irony has not been lost on the political columnists and commentators of this province. There are now literally hundreds of columns that draw the same conclusion: the NDP leadership knew full well that their budgets for '95-96 and '96-97 would not be balanced, but they clung to that fiction in hopes that they would win re-election.

Let me provide the House with just one example, the interview between Hal Wake and the Finance minister on CBC-Radio, January 31, 1997. It began with a quote from Hal Wake, who says:

"I have heard a lot about the forecasting, but what we didn't hear in the election, in any of the NDP promises or platform, was that we will balance the budget if. . . . Or, these things being true, this will happen. You said: 'We have balanced the budget.'"

To which the Minister of Finance responded:

"What I was going to go on to say was that I think we did overstate the case in the election campaign. I think the rhetoric of politics around election campaigns is one which perhaps encourages politicians on all sides to do that. But I think that our rhetoric did go beyond what I feel, in retrospect, it ought to have been, and I think that has contributed to some of the problems we now face in terms of regaining public confidence."

The two Betty Crocker budgets left the government with a huge credibility gap. Far more seriously, they left the NDP with an enormous sinkhole financially. This resulted in a long series of ill-conceived and half-baked moves designed to cover up this budgetary deception.

Among the more prominent victims of these moves were local governments, and through them, homeowners, renters and small business in this province. The obvious intent of these shameful moves was to dump the burden of this government's deception and incompetence onto the backs of local governments; and through higher property taxes and reduced services, onto the backs of homeowners, renters and small business across this province. Most prominent among these shameful moves was the fundamental breach of the Local Government Grants Act.

In 1994 -- just two years ago -- the NDP brought in the Local Government Grants Act to replace the Revenue Sharing Act, because the latter. . . . I want to quote from the debate between the government and the opposition on the introduction of the Local Government Grants Act. The government said the Revenue Sharing Act "simply didn't deliver the certainty and predictability that local governments desperately need by January 1 of each year." The new act, the NDP promised, "sets local government grants on a sustainable foundation well into the future, removes the element of whimsy and lobbying, and introduces elements of partnership, proper negotiation and consultation."

What a cruel hoax that turned out to be. For this government, "well into the future" amounted to about two years, and certainly there was a complete absence of negotiation and consultation preceding the cuts that were made on November 26. What local government got on November 26 of last year was a fundamental breach of the Local Government Grants Act, without any sort of negotiation or consultation -- this despite the Premier and his then Municipal Affairs minister signing a protocol promising just that at the UBCM convent-

[ Page 2234 ]

ion in Penticton two months earlier. In fact, the UBCM executive first learned of the extent of the cuts through the media on November 26 -- absurd, insulting, unprecedented and totally unacceptable.

To make matters worse, the NDP tried to spin that the $113 million breach of the Local Government Grants Act was really inconsequential. For example, the NDP tried to minimize the real impact of the cuts by throwing into the equation the $116.3 million cost of the provincial ambulance service and the $287.5 million cost of B.C. Transit. Shameful! The NDP wanted to convince British Columbians that the real cut was only 12 or 13 percent, not the 30 percent overall and up to 80 percent that municipalities have actually suffered. Shameful!

At the district of Salmon Arm, in my home riding, there was a transfer cut of well over $300,000 -- a cut of over $20 for every man, woman and child in that community. On the one hand, in the election of 1996 the Premier of this province promised us a tax freeze, and on the other hand, not long after, he dumped property tax increases and service cuts onto the backs of homeowners, renters and small business in this province by those shameful cuts under the Local Government Grants Act. Absolutely shameful!

An Hon. Member: You were going to cut $500 million.

G. Abbott: The interesting thing is that the member across says we were going to cut, and I'm pleased that they've raised that issue. The thing that they don't get is that we have some vision of where we're going with local government; they have none. They cut. What we propose to do, and still continue to propose to do, is to not only to further empower local government but also to provide them with corresponding resources -- something that this government has miserably failed to do.

The NDP followed up their breach of the Local Government Grants Act -- again, without any sort of negotiation or consultation -- with a half-baked scheme to download provincial roads onto local government. Imagine, for example, the shameful spectacle of this NDP government trying to dump provincial roads onto the back of the tiny village of Sayward. Let me just briefly quote from a letter from the village of Sayward to the hon. Minister of Transportation and Highways. They were kind enough to send me a copy, as well. It says:

"Dear Ms. Minister:

"The village of Sayward has recently learned that the province intends to hand over a 4.4-kilometre stretch of provincial highway, along with the expectation that the village will repair and maintain it as part of its municipal road structure.

"We have a population of 444, and a total of three kilometres of municipal roadway at present. Adding the proposed

section of highway would more than double the amount of roadway to be managed by this village. We have neither the resources nor the specialized equipment necessary to accomplish this task. The piece of road in question is also badly in need of repair, now.

"We strongly object to receiving this hand-me-down from the province."

This letter was signed by the mayor of the village of Sayward.

[4:15]

Have we really come so far in this province that we have to download provincial problems onto the backs of small villages that simply don't have the resources to deal with them? I think it's shameful. And even more shameful is the fact that this was repeated in municipalities all across this province.

Not even the right of people to justice in this province is exempt from the consequences of the NDP budget cover-up. The courthouse. . . .

Hon. J. Pullinger: Point of order. The member opposite is accusing this government of a cover-up. I don't think that's parliamentary language. He's imputing a motive. . . .

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. I'm sure the hon. member will take that under advisement.

G. Abbott: The courthouse in the village of Chase, in my constituency, is one of 11 across this province that were slated for closure. This courthouse was built only a few years ago at the government's instigation, and there are five years remaining on a ten-year lease at over $100,000 per year. More importantly, closure will have the immediate effect of undermining both community policing and community access to justice. In larger communities, the threatened closure of courthouses also means the further downloading of policing and court maintenance costs onto the backs of municipalities.

Madam Speaker, the NDP's disgraceful treatment of local government is both a symptom and a consequence of the budget deception which was foisted onto people of British Columbia during the past year. History is not going to be kind to this NDP government. It doesn't matter what this government does for the balance of its term. It can move mountains; it can claim surplus budgets; it can turn water into wine. None of this will matter. History will judge that this government deceived its citizens, and this government will be cursed by that judgment forever.

Madam Speaker, I would like to move:

be it resolved that the motion that the Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House go into Committee of Supply be amended to add the following: "but this House regrets that the government appears determined to unfairly download significant costs onto the backs of homeowners, renters and small business through the arbitrary and unilateral breach of the Local Government Grants Act."

On the amendment.

S. Hawkins: In 1844, Benjamin Disraeli wrote: "No government can be long secure without a formidable opposition." I'm honoured to have the opportunity to serve British Columbians, and I trust that the members of this House will recognize this amendment as fulfilling that important role.

Hon. Speaker, at 2 p.m. on March 25, I believed that I had seen and heard just about every form of deception that can be perpetrated. But just one minute later, the Minister of Finance demonstrated that I had been incorrect. My awareness of deceit and falsehood has taken a sideways shift since last Tuesday afternoon. I'll talk more about that theme a little bit later in my remarks.

The theme of this budget is apparently that of illusion. Perhaps we should call this the 3-D budget: the deception, diversion and delusion budget. We've heard the minister crowing about his wonderful budget document for days now. This minister claims that his 3-D budget will increase jobs, improve health care, protect education and lower the tax burden on middle- and lower-income British Columbians. The minister wants us to believe that this will all be accomplished within his government's sixth successive deficit budget. The only ones who appear to be fooled by this illusion are the members sitting opposite.

[ Page 2235 ]

The minister says that this government has accepted the responsibility of meeting the needs of British Columbians in a fiscally responsible way. How truly interesting! Is this government also ready to accept the responsibility for the crushing burden of debt they've created and that this 3-D budget is adding to? Are these so-called fiscal managers prepared to explain to the people of British Columbia that this 3-D budget is actually causing the provincial debt to increase by yet another $1.5 billion and that it will now exceed $30 billion?

In reality, the minister and his NDP government can only shamefully take responsibility for the near-doubling of the provincial debt since the NDP took over in 1991. The deception of this budgetary 3-D illusion comes from the claim that the deficit will rise by $185 million, when the minister knows that the accumulated debt will be increasing by closer to $1.5 billion. It is the same taxpayer who will be responsible for the ever-increasing debt that this government continues to pile up, no matter how masterfully the Minister of Finance off-loads his responsibilities. How utterly deceptive the budget charade has been.

This minister claims to be proud of this budget document. I really have to question his pride. It's almost as though he's congratulating himself for foisting a get-rich scheme on some poor, unsuspecting, honest yokel. If the minister truly has cause for pride, shouldn't that be reflected at the end of the fiscal year when his budget comes in on target or better? In that context, where is the minister's sense of pride over the budget he presented to this assembly last year?

The people of British Columbia are right to feel insulted by the arrogance and deception of last year's bogus budget. This minister's sense of pride has done nothing to create confidence in the people of British Columbia about this government's ability to do anything except create illusions.

Not only is this budget an illusion of deception, it is also an illusion of diversion. This government has diverted some of its fiscal responsibilities onto municipalities. This diversion or downloading, if you prefer, unfairly burdens homeowners, small business and renters. This government thinks nothing of unilaterally and arbitrarily breaching the Local Government Grants Act. The duplicity of this government is self-evident. On September 18 the previous Minister of Municipal Affairs, now Minister of Employment and Investment, signed a protocol of recognition with the Union of B.C.

Municipalities at the annual meeting of the UBCM in Penticton. One of the principles that was agreed to by the minister concerned notification and consultation: "In the spirit of fairness, openness and good faith, any proposed significant change in legislation, regulations, standards, policies or programs will be preceded by appropriate consultation among the affected parties, including timely notification of the proposed change."

Did the minister, the Deputy Premier -- whose empty seat I'm looking at on that side of the House -- sign this protocol of recognition on behalf of this government on September 18 in Penticton? Yes, he did. Did the minister issue a press release bragging about this protocol as a landmark accomplishment on November 5, 1996? Yes, I believe he did. Since this agreement was signed, has there been significant off-loading of provincial responsibilities and programs onto the municipalities? Well, yes, there has been. Has there been prior appropriate consultation among the affected parties? No, I believe there has not.

Were the changes in policies and programs preceded by timely notification? No, they were not. Did the government deliberately break their word within weeks of this signed agreement? Yes, I believe they did.

Now, hon. Speaker, we seem to have a difference here involving what was agreed to by this government and what they actually did. This is a breach of promise; this is duplicity; this is dishonesty. The people of British Columbia expected that an agreement signed by a minister of the Crown in September would hold true. However, with this government, a promise apparently only holds true until the Premier changes his mind. The pattern emerging from this government is that they say one thing and do another over and over again.

As I look over there to the government benches, I see mostly sad and disgusted faces of decent, hard-working politicians who have to carry this government's burden of deceit and shame not only in this House but in the hallways, the dining room, the library and the offices of this building -- and in their own homes and communities, as well. For anyone, it's a hefty price to pay, and it casts a rather ugly shadow on our roles as MLAs representing British Columbians.

We as elected members of the Legislative Assembly have a responsibility to all British Columbians. The budgets of last year were deceitful and offensive. There isn't a member in this chamber who can categorically deny that. This year's version -- although written on different paper with some clever diction and camouflaged by the minister's sense of pride -- carries the same tone and is being received with an even greater degree of skepticism.

The off-loading to the municipalities is not the only example of the diversion of responsibility found in this 3-D budget. The budget also includes an increase of $55 million in fees for various government services. The budget also includes an increase in the dividend paid to the government by B.C. Hydro in the amount of over $600 million in the last two years, while at the same time Hydro's debt grew by over $300 million.

But the penultimate diversion -- the mother of all diversions, as the member for Matsqui referred to it as -- is the sideways shift of $100 million for the forest silviculture program to Forest Renewal B.C., so that it wouldn't show on the government's books. The Minister of Forests is quoted as saying that FRBC has agreed to consider this $100 million shift, but it won't fund silviculture until the jobs and timber accord is settled.

So the Minister of Finance has shifted $100 million worth of expenditure onto the books of FRBC, while at the same time the Minister of Forests says that the FRBC is not yet committed to paying that expense. This is more than double-entry accounting. This is illusion by diversion. It's dishonest, and it's misleading. When adding the total Crown corporation deficit to the government's deficit, the figure is closer to $900 million. The claim of a $185 million deficit is an insulting illusion. Shame on the Minister of Finance!

The Minister of Finance has made mention of his prudent accounting practices, but I haven't been able to find the term "sideways shift" in any references on accounting principles. For lack of an official accounting term, I guess I'll create a term for this new accounting practice here in the House today. I propose to refer to this type of accounting as "shifty accounting." I believe that shifty accounting practices would allow for sideways shifting of an expense to an agency that hasn't accepted responsibility for that expense.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, hon. member. You made a comment just a minute ago that is clearly unparliamentary and refers directly to a member in this House. That is not what is done in our traditions. So would you withdraw that particular comment. It referred to the minister, and that's not appropriate.

[ Page 2236 ]

S. Hawkins: I'll withdraw it to the Minister of Finance.

It would seem that what was decided was that the budget's bottom line needed to appear to be something, and then a shifty accounting practice was applied to make the books arrive at the politically motivated total. What masterful use of diversion to create an illusion!

This government and this minister are also sadly plagued by delusion. A delusion is a false belief which is strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence. This government believes that this 3-D budget shows real progress in placing the province's finances on a sound, sustainable path, and that the budget is "consistent with the priorities of British Columbians." Sadly, this government holds these beliefs in spite of invalidating evidence to the contrary. The people of British Columbia have repeatedly voiced their instructions to this government to get the crushing provincial debt under control.

This government has repeatedly failed to follow its own debt reduction plan, and in this budget we see the debt to taxpayers increasing by $1.5 billion.

[4:30]

The Minister of Finance puts forward the Business Council of B.C. as endorsing the financial management plan included in this budget. But as the member for Delta South so eloquently advised this assembly last week, the Business Council did not endorse the financial management plan. As for the budget document as a whole, they said: "Because of what has happened in the past, we are somewhat skeptical."

This year's 3-D budget has all the elements of successful illusion: deception, diversion and delusion. What a proud moment for this government. Harry Houdini would be proud, too, I'm sure. So where do we go from here? How do we earn the trust of British Columbians and move forward? I ask: what are we doing here? What are we doing to the people of this province? What are we doing with their money? This budget is filled with numbers and estimates based on assumptions, forecasts, predictions and, no doubt, some political medicine, as well.

I ask you: whose assumptions, whose forecasts and whose predictions and what spin doctors were instrumental in putting these papers together this time? When will honesty step in and illusion step out? It seems that I have more questions than comments. It is kind of hard not to, when you're faced with a document as bland and as plagued with both vagueness and superfluous diction as this budget document.

Once again, we have here a budget filled with financial optimism and promise. Yet I feel more discouraged than encouraged. It's interesting to note that the word "balanced" is nowhere to be seen in this budget. Perhaps that will be one of the hidden surprises that will emerge from this illusion of 1997-98, but I wouldn't hold my breath. This government has proven six times in a row that they don't know how to balance a budget. Once again, we're left with a bunch of empty words, a bunch of rhetoric spewing from the mouths of this government.

Last year's two budgets, although neatly packaged, were fraudulent and misrepresentative, contrary to what we were led to believe at the time of their presentation in this House.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, hon. member. There was a word in there that was also inappropriate and unparliamentary. The word you used was "fraudulent," and that's one of the words that is in the dictionary of things we don't do.

S. Hawkins: I withdraw "fraudulent."

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Yes, there is one. There are many of these words listed in our own MacMinn's book.

S. Hawkins: I replace it with "misleading."

Contrary to what we were led to believe at this time, in the budget preparation those budgets were not based on sound fiscal and economic analysis. My concern reflects the concern of each and every member on this side of the House and of hundreds of thousands of British Columbians across the province -- British Columbians who are not happy with this government, who were burned by its fiscal policies, its empty promises and its broken commitments. It is difficult for me to even pretend to be optimistic. It is difficult for any British Columbian to pretend to be optimistic.

The theory behind cutting back on government expenditures is that it is supposed to result in the reduction of taxes and increased economic growth. This government has reportedly made significant cuts to the public service over the past year; it has amalgamated some departments, apparently, and eliminated others. But we have seen no tax decreases and no economic growth. This concerns me. This concerns my colleagues, my friends, my neighbours and my constituents. This concerns the constituents of the members on this side of the House, and certainly constituents of members on that side of the House.

This government and its policies have become the enemies of prosperity in our province -- enemies of the prosperity of all British Columbians. This is not rhetoric. The facts speak for themselves. British Columbia has an enormous debt and deficit problem. We have to be clear about that. No amount of colourful language and tone of confidence will solve that very serious problem. No amount of hedging, name-calling, finger-pointing or humour from that side of the House will solve that very serious problem. No amount of announcements or Premier's television addresses will solve that very serious problem.

Members on this side of the House have toured the province over the past several months, talking with regular British Columbians. A year ago, this Premier claimed to be on their side. The overriding message they have given is very clear to me, and I'm sure that my colleagues have concluded the same. The public, the taxpayer, the labour force, the business community, the unemployed, single-parent families, professionals -- just about every British Columbian says they lack confidence in this government. They lack confidence in the competence of this government. They lack confidence in the initiatives of this government. They lack confidence in the policies of this government.

This budget clearly does not acknowledge those concerns. The public are skeptical of this budget and this government. This skepticism needs to be addressed, because the growth of our economy, the retention and creation of British Columbia's jobs and the reduction of people dependent on social assistance can only happen when the risk factors in this case -- this government's economic and social policies -- are adjusted to restore confidence and to encourage job creation, innovation, investment and business growth.

I can assure the taxpayers of this province that I and my hard-working colleagues on this side of the House will work tirelessly to hold this government to account. When it comes to the handling of finances in this province, this government's record speaks for itself. All of their budgets to date have been illusions; they hide the dismal truth. I would like to believe

[ Page 2237 ]

this is not the case this time. I would really like to believe this, but I fear it's another hollow promise. I believe it's another illusion.

This past year has been dismal for all of us, to say the least. The people of this province have lost faith in our political system. They have lost faith in the democratic process. They have lost faith in the government. And now, here today, we find ourselves in the midst of yet another package of glorified language and hyperbole to exaggerate the state of the province and to mislead the taxpayers.

I must say, hon. Speaker, that I look forward to participating in estimates debates, and I will endeavour to at least try to listen to the responses of the various ministers as they try to justify the accounting in Budget '97. As for today, I ask for this House to support the amendment moved by my colleague the member for Shuswap.

J. Doyle: I am pleased to get up and speak in favour of Budget '97.

First of all, before I speak on the budget, I would like to make note of the passing last November of a very good friend of mine, a very good friend of our province and a constituent of mine: Ian Jack, a citizen of the community of Edgewater. Ian was a retired park naturalist with the federal government. He was very active in the rod and gun community all throughout British Columbia, and one of our outstanding citizens. I would like to make note of his passing at this time.

Hon. Speaker, this budget is about a job strategy for B.C., a job strategy that will support the creation of 40,000 new jobs this year, building on the best job creation record in Canada.

It includes: investing $1 billion in schools, hospitals and transportation infrastructure to create more than 13,000 jobs; 12,000 new jobs for young people, through a $23 million Guarantee for Youth program -- something very dear to my heart; pursuing the jobs and timber accord with the forest industry, with the goal of creating 21,000 new jobs in the forest sector by the year 2001; creating a new agency to promote tourism, in partnership with the tourism industry; promoting growth in the airline industry through the phase-out and reduction of the international jet fuel tax from 4 cents per litre to 2 cents by 1999; encouraging small business job creation; continuing the income tax holiday for eligible new small businesses, reducing costs by $29 million; and working with B.C.'s high-growth film industry to expand opportunities and encourage Canadian products.

Also, this government is protecting health care and education. While overall spending is down, spending on health care and education is up. Health care is protected, with an increase of more than $300 million to fund hospitals and physician services and to reduce surgery wait-lists. Education is protected, with a $63 million increase in the K-to-12 school system and 2,900 new spaces for students at universities and colleges. And to help B.C. students, tuition fees continue to be frozen.

Back in my riding and in the Kootenays, the Columbia Basin Trust, which we promised in the last session of our government, is up and running. The moneys that we promised to send to the Columbia Basin Trust are in their bank account now. It is up and running. The opposition were all over the map when we set up the Columbia Basin Trust. One day they were against it, one day they were for it -- according to what part of the province they were in.

I am pleased to have worked with our Premier, the Minister of Employment and Investment, the Minister of Forests and other ministries in this government, through Forest Renewal. Last fall, the major employer in Golden, Evans Forest Products Ltd., was in financial difficulties. I was pleased to have worked with our government to put Forest Renewal dollars to use in getting that company -- and also their operations in Revelstoke and Malakwa -- up and running again. It had a big effect on the economies in that area. I am very pleased, and at this time I'd like to thank our Premier and members of the cabinet for their assistance.

I was also pleased, since we were last in this House, to work with the communities of Golden and Revelstoke in directing value-added wood sales to operations in Golden and Revelstoke. Mills will be built and jobs will be added to diversify further the forest industry in those communities.

I was pleased some weeks ago to have been up at the community of Field, a small community of about 110 homes 35 miles east of Golden, where we inaugurated the hydro line, which we worked to build through the Canada-B.C. Infrastructure Works program over the last couple of years. Now those people are on the hydro line and the same service as other people in the province.

We are also pleased to have opened in the last year new skills training centres in Kimberley and Revelstoke.

We are carrying out and doing what we promised to do during the election: protection of health and education, and creating jobs. Let us look at the opposition. Just imagine for a terrible moment if they had won the election -- those great defenders of Howe Street over there. We could start off. . . . It's really nice, you know, with this list we have on our desks with all the seats and where the members sit in the House. We now have, compliments of Michael Smith, a $70,000 picture of the members over there. There are several of them kind of growing quite a bit. Others are sitting on three-legged chairs. What will happen if they lose one other leg of that chair?

An Hon. Member: They're all football players.

J. Doyle: That's right.

It's really nice to have this. I'd like to thank Michael Smith for passing this on to the members on the government side of the House.

The opposition, if they were in government today, would have already initiated a $3 billion cut to the budget. They would have initiated their 15 percent cut to local government. The Leader of the Opposition said that any governments -- anybody -- that can't accept a 15 percent cut are not very good managers. We made a 3 percent cut in funding to local government.

[4:45]

The large cuts from Ottawa were mentioned by the other speakers earlier on. The Leader of the Opposition and the opposition said that the cuts weren't big enough. Of course, they would have been in the stages of killing off the homeowner grant, which we found out during the election they wanted to do. That would have been phased out as we speak.

Also, of course, we found out during the election that the idea of going from 75 MLAs to 60 didn't fly. But if they had won the election, they would have been cutting back to 60 MLAs. No doubt the Leader of the Opposition on his farewell tour around northern B.C. a few weeks ago wouldn't have been around there then if he had been cutting back from 75 to 60 MLAs.

[ Page 2238 ]

Of course, they would have also been through the stages of saying: "We're selling off B.C. Rail." That's what they promised during the election, although their promises are quite flexible. That's one of the great things about being in opposition. You can change your mind once or twice a day, as the people on the other side of the floor do.

There are even people